BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

137 results for “disallowance”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Indore159Delhi137Mumbai106Bangalore53Pune40Kolkata30Chennai28Jaipur23Chandigarh19Panaji18Raipur17Hyderabad17Nagpur14Amritsar14Ahmedabad12Jodhpur5Cochin5Cuttack4Lucknow4Patna3Guwahati3Visakhapatnam2Karnataka2Agra2Allahabad1Rajkot1SC1Varanasi1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)93Section 153D70Section 143(3)48Section 153A38Section 36(1)(va)34Addition to Income27Disallowance27Section 143(2)21Section 271(1)(c)20

RAJESH KUMAR GARG,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 970/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed by the order dated\n16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred\nan appeal under Section 246A

ITO WARD-4(1), GURGAON vs. SANDEEP SANDHA , GURGAON

ITA 1195/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 137 · Page 1 of 7

Section 14317
Deduction16
Penalty11
15 Jul 2025
AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. Samyak Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed by the order\ndated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order,\nthe assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

RAJESH KUMAR GARG,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 971/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed by the order dated\n16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred\nan appeal under Section 246A

SUNIL KUMAR,ALWAR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3, REWARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 7634/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7634/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Sunil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hill View Apartment, K-001, Ward-3, Neemrana, Behror, Alwar, Rewari, Rajasthan-301707 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ccmpk7200C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081206915(1) Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) R.W.S. 264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. AO, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3225/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Kumar TripathiFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

POONAM SABHARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1182/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

POONAM SABHARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 52/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 54/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 72/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 970/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

KOTA TRUCKS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2050/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

GECOM INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 5(2)Section 9

disallowing the appeal made by the Appellant under Section 246A of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ELEPHANT INDIA FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4115/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

246A of the Act. The various grounds of appeal are dealt below: 1. Grounds of Appeal 1 -Addition of Rs.120,92,020 - 14A 1.1 The Appellant contends that the Ld AO has defaulted in application of section 14A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by disallowing

MMTC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-17(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan, Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(a)Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

disallowance of Rs.6 lakh claimed under Section 35AC of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the impugned order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.03.2019 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10 in question is barred by limitation and therefore, is nullity

AJAY PAL SINGH,NOIDA GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) NOIDA GBN, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2253/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 156Section 249Section 270ASection 270MSection 276C

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting’. The High Court while quashing the penalty order has held that "there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. P. LTD.

ITA-511/2011HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 115Section 14ASection 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

disallowance of `3,07,77,285/- and as a consequence penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee was duly informed about the initiation of penalty proceedings. (g) Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28th February, 2003 the Assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1027/DEL/2020[2015-16 24Q, (Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

Disallowance of business expenditure on account of non- deduction of tax on payment to resident payee …………………………………. (Not reproduced as not relevant) III. Fee and penalty for delay in furnishing of TDS/TCS Statement and penalty for incorrect information in TDS/TCS Statement As per the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, a deductor is required to furnish a periodical TDS statement

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2020[2013-14 (26Q-Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

Disallowance of business expenditure on account of non- deduction of tax on payment to resident payee …………………………………. (Not reproduced as not relevant) III. Fee and penalty for delay in furnishing of TDS/TCS Statement and penalty for incorrect information in TDS/TCS Statement As per the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, a deductor is required to furnish a periodical TDS statement

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2559/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Mishra, Senior DR
Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

disallowance of business expenses who has confirmed the remaining additions vide order dated 26.10.2012. It is also not in dispute that the assessee challenged before the Tribunal only claim of exclusion of AED credit of Rs.2547 lakhs but the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed and the further appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal